Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

13 years on what are your thoughts on the U.S. presidential election of 2000?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 13 years on what are your thoughts on the U.S. presidential election of 2000?

    Here are my thoughts:

    1. Florida should have done a full hand recount, making sure it was very methodical and and thorough.
    2. With the election laws as they are, I think that the federal courts shouldn't have become involved.

    I believe that a full recount would have probably made Al Gore president, but I can't say for sure because Florida was that close.

    Though I think the bigger take away from the election is

    3. The electoral college is incredibly undemocratic. If any other nation in the world had an election like the U.S. 2000 election, the U.S. government would probably criticize the results. If we had an ally lose in an election like that, hell we might even try to impose sanctions on the incoming government. Why should a few votes (less than 1/10 of 1% of all the votes in Florida) in one place count more than all of the votes in aggregate?

    4. The U.S. because of it's undemocratic system should move away from the electoral college and to the direct election of presidents by popular vote, or some form of popular vote (instant runoff etc.)

    5. To ensure everyone has the same vote at the ballot, all election regulations should come from a nonpartisan federal agency. Everyone who votes, should vote in the same manner, following the same rules, with all of the same regulations, laws, and guidelines governing their vote.

    I think it was a travesty that the election seemed so messed up on every level. Though even if Al Gore had of been president, there is a good to great chance that not much would look different now. There is a better than even chance that the debt would be at similar levels, threats to the U.S. would also probably be at similar levels, and the economy probably wouldn't be that different. Also the two biggest changes, would be Al Gore wouldn't be associated with an Oscar winning film and George W. Bush wouldn't have built a library.

    What are your thoughts?

  • #2
    Electoral College

    Comment


    • #3
      In addition, anyone who's still worked up about the 2000 election is a ****ing loser.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tupac Shakur View Post
        In addition, anyone who's still worked up about the 2000 election is a ****ing loser.
        QFT
        To us, it is the BEAST.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm not worked up about the election. Hell I didn't even vote for Gore, but I do think that the electoral college is the worst system for choosing a leader ever invented. I would rather see the democratic and republican primary winners joust, or field and manage a cricket teams facing off in a best of 7 game series than what we currently have.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not really a fan of electoral college. I really don't see the point of it. If Candidate A gets 1000 votes and Candidate B gets 1001, Candidate B wins.
            What's so hard about it and why shape it differently?
            Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
            "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
            He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
              I'm not really a fan of electoral college. I really don't see the point of it. If Candidate A gets 1000 votes and Candidate B gets 1001, Candidate B wins.
              What's so hard about it and why shape it differently?
              Exactly!

              If the NBA used a system inspired by the electoral college, then in the playoffs, points in the second quarter would count 2.5 times as much as points in the other quarters and the winner of game four would receive two wins for that game.

              Comment


              • #8
                I blame the South. They didn't want people voting their slaves to be free.
                To us, it is the BEAST.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It's basically due to the US being a collection of states.

                  It is the people of the states who decide the president, and not the people who are citizens of the united states.

                  That is why puerto ricans in puerto rico can not vote while puerto ricans in new york/california can vote.

                  JM
                  Jon Miller-
                  I AM.CANADIAN
                  GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's basically due to the US being a collection of states.

                    It is the people of the states who decide the president, and not the people who are citizens of the united states.

                    That is why puerto ricans in puerto rico can not vote while puerto ricans in new york/california can vote.

                    JM
                    Jon Miller-
                    I AM.CANADIAN
                    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If we are simply a collection of states who vote for the president, then wouldn't equal protection under the law mean that each state should have only one vote? Also, why should the people even vote? If it's the case, then shouldn't either the governor or legislature decide who the state's vote goes to?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You can't do it one state, one vote. It has to be a person thing. If you go there, then you're starting to back electoral.
                        North Dakota having one vote and Texas, California and New York each having one vote is inappropriate.
                        Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                        "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                        He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I say get rid of states altogether.
                          To us, it is the BEAST.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sava View Post
                            I blame the South. They didn't want people voting their slaves to be free.
                            They wanted the slave population to count toward their representation and their influence in the presidential election without letting slaves vote.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
                              You can't do it one state, one vote. It has to be a person thing. If you go there, then you're starting to back electoral.
                              North Dakota having one vote and Texas, California and New York each having one vote is inappropriate.
                              Oh I agree. I was being facetious, just because it's not really the states who votes for presidents, it is their residents. I mean I understand WHY we use the electors, because the constitution says we have to. But, it is still a bad system. I mean the 3/5th rule was also in the constitution, but it wasn't a good system either.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X